California Consumer Group Seeks Enforcement Action Against Geico

February 13, 2015

  • February 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
    They broke the rules, but... says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Yes, GEICO appears to have broken the rules here. However, someone needs to acknowledge that California has absurdly low minimum liability limits. 15/30/5 will probably cover a low-speed collision with a bicycle, but any serious collision is going to cost way more than those paltry figures. Minimum limits are inadquate everywhere, but this is ridiculous.

    What GEICO needs to do (along with other P&C inusers) is educate insurance customers so they understand the real benefits of having greater limits. They really don’t cost that much more than the minimums.

  • February 16, 2015 at 3:36 pm
    SWFL Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sounds like they are purposely setting the limits higher in order to steer these customers elsewhere. They need to catch Geico for purposely reporting NAF accidents to CLUE as AAF’s.

  • February 16, 2015 at 4:02 pm
    phoenix says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    I’m curious, not enough to research it myself granted, but I wonder if the “Lowest Limits” indicator shown on the quote screen is actually a hyperlink you can click to get the minimum limits quote as opposed to a quote any responsible agent or advisor would recommend.

  • February 17, 2015 at 12:25 pm
    Libby says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    They don’t want to write these drivers, that’s evident. But why do they have to? Can’t they just say their underwriting guidelines prohibit unmarried, uneducated, unemployed drivers? Other carriers do.

    • February 17, 2015 at 5:20 pm
      SWFL Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Other carriers may tell you they don’t want these drivers but I doubt they spell it out in their rate filings. If Geico feels their rate is inadequate for these drivers then they need to price for it.

  • February 17, 2015 at 2:16 pm
    blu lightning says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Prop 103 is a take all comers law if you are a “good driver” as the law defines it. You aren’t able to say that you want unmarrieds for instance or those who are less educated-its not a part of the law. If you want to write PPA in CA, then you have to comply with the law.
    GEICO may not like it-and I don’t either-Prop 103 has been one of the worst things to happen to Ca insureds ever, but like it or not, if you want to play in CA, then you have to obey the law.
    And while the CA minimums are absurdly low, they won’t get raised as higher limits impose unair hardship to the poor, illegal and uninsured. Its one of many 3rd rails in Ca political life.
    The guy running mercury is the only one who is still fighting the DOI and the Prop 103 crowd-everyone else plays the game as the market share you lose by pulling out of CA can’t be made up anywhere else.

    • February 17, 2015 at 3:36 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I wasn’t familiar with CA law. Thank’s for educating me, Blu.

  • February 17, 2015 at 2:48 pm
    Doug Spencer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    15/30/5 is from 1974!!! We bought a small house in Brentwood for $26,000 in 1975.
    15/30/5 is better than no insurance. Is being grossly underinsured OK?
    Do we have to have a CA Proposition to have a reality check on 15/30/5 coverage limits?
    Could the Consumer Federation of California file a petition to increase rates “indexed” to the current value of money (use 1974 as a benchmark)?
    The elephant in the room is how many not at fault drivers are affected because 15/30/5 is not rational.
    How many unmarried low or moderate-income drivers are hurt economically and physically because the other at fault driver had only the current legal minimum 15/30/5?

    • February 17, 2015 at 4:00 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Bet you wish you still had that house!

  • February 18, 2015 at 12:54 pm
    Matchoo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    There are plenty of companies as well as a resiudual market to choose from. Why should any company be forced to put their capital at risk for any risk class they don’t want?

    • February 18, 2015 at 3:31 pm
      Because.. says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      That’s what “the people” (and Harvey) wanted!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*